In Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, the Supreme Court also "focused on the third requirement" (necessity and financial burden requirement) of section 1021.5. The Whitley court expressly disapproved, inter alia, Hammond, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th 115, to the extent it was contrary to the Supreme Court's holding. (Whitley, supra, at p. 1226, fn. 4.) The court held: "We conclude that a litigant's personal nonpecuniary motives may not be used to disqualify that litigant from obtaining fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The contrary interpretation, which was adopted by the Court of Appeal in this case, has no basis in the language, legislative history, or evident purpose of section 1021.5. ... The purpose of section 1021.5 is not to compensate with attorney fees only those litigants who have altruistic or lofty motives, but rather all litigants and attorneys who step forward to engage in public interest litigation when there are insufficient financial incentives to justify the litigation in economic terms." (Id. at p. 1211.) The Supreme Court laid out "the method for weighing costs and benefits." (Ibid. ) It explained that "'the trial court must first fix--or at least estimate--the monetary value of the benefits obtained by the successful litigants themselves ... ; second, discount these total benefits by some estimate of the probability of success at the time the vital litigation decisions were made which eventually produced the successful outcome ... ; third, determine the costs of the litigation ... ; and finally, award fees unless the expected value of the litigant's own monetary award exceeds by a substantial margin the actual litigation costs.'" (Id. at pp. 1215-1216.)